Guns, Guns Guns

smr wrote:Did or did not Germany just approve Sharia law in one of the cities or was it for the whole country?

Neither.

I mean, rightwing idiots are quick to proclaim that this is the case based on a few cases where civil contracts made under sharia law were upheld in german courts (because, guess what, they didn't violate the BGB or the german constitution), but there is at this time no city or district where the sharia is accepted as the base of criminal law.

But that's a distinction far too subtle for the usual rabble rousers to make.

The E, he was not from Syria but from Afghanistan descent. The authorities had chance to stop this but due to Political Correctness, they ignored the warning signs.

His descent is irrelevant. He was born and raised in the US.

What could they have done to stop it? Incarcerate him based on being a shitty husband, saying something that is generally not accepted in polite society and being a distant aquaintance of an actual terrorist?

None of the above comes even close to a crime. But even if it did, if that would have warranted putting him on a watchlist or barring him from flying, it would not have stopped him from walking into a gun store, legally obtaining the weapons and ammo used in this attack and going through with it.

biochem wrote:Comment from gay columnist regarding Islamic terrorism in Orlando was to state "now they've come for me" and quote this classic statement:

Martin Niemöller famously wrote, as the Nazis took over control of Germany: First they came for the Socialists,

(Waiting for the various people who think the Nazis were Socialists because they don't understand the history behind the name of the party to have their brains short circuit...)

Anyone who is going to plan for self defense, with or without a weapon, should also do appropriate solid training.

The hardest parts of TAP/G’s curriculum for me to face were the conjoined realities that there are truly evil people in this world who will harm or kill a child in the blink of an eye for very little or nothing, and that to defend those children—possibly your children—you may be forced into taking a life right in front of them.

From:
http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/06/08 ... sletterad=

A training course developed from noting that some of the self defense methods in most gun training courses are not suitable when the attack is on your family instead of yourself

gcomeau wrote:

biochem wrote:Comment from gay columnist regarding Islamic terrorism in Orlando was to state "now they've come for me" and quote this classic statement:

Martin Niemöller famously wrote, as the Nazis took over control of Germany: First they came for the Socialists,

(Waiting for the various people who think the Nazis were Socialists because they don't understand the history behind the name of the party to have their brains short circuit...)

They were socialists with one key difference. Their socialism was harnessed to their strong nationalism. Socialists as a rule followed the Marxism in envisioning a borderless world once perfection was reached.

Besides the issue of nationalism, both believed in a strong government that controlled the means of production to a greater or lesser degree.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:(Waiting for the various people who think the Nazis were Socialists because they don't understand the history behind the name of the party to have their brains short circuit...)

They were socialists with one key difference.

FFS...

They were an ANTI-SOCIALIST hard right fascist party. The one and only reason they had "socialist" in their party name is they were trying to redefine the term in their fight against actual socialists. They were not socialists in any sense of the word anyone else uses the term "socialist" for.

They did in fact come for the socialists first once they came to power, as of course was their clearly stated intention. One of the first things they did in coming to power was outlaw actual socialism. They outlawed labor unions. They abolished newspapers with liberal leanings.

They. Were. Not. Socialists.

And all the ridiculous attempts by US conservatives to try to rewrite history to pretend they were doesn't change a thing.

How could you have misread what I wrote so badly?
Firstly as I stated at length I have hunting and target rifles, and do not have semi automatic handguns. For my entire six decades and more pistols and revolvers have been heavily restricted in Australia, and rightly so. Assault rifles and handguns are designed to kill people, not for any other purpose. Having non automatic long weapons shows that I am not anti gun, just anti killing people.
Why would I give up my weapons? Why do you call me a hypocrite? You're missing the whole point.

smr wrote:Daryl, If you believe this, why are you not giving up your weapons. Correct me if I am wrong but you own rifles and/or semi automatic hand guns. I you feel so strongly about this issue, man up and lead by example. No...I then in this instance call you a hypocrite.

This people have been attacking western civilization for a while. Their stated goal is world wide sharia law and muslim ruled governments. Does this type of attack really surprise anyone? Remember America is "the Great Satan!" These attacks are only going to increase. Islam jihadists would rather kill you than help you.

Just to point out that I have not been to a night club or bar in many years! So I just assumed that they have armed security and metal detectors at the clubs. That's my bad because I did not think that through. A weapon would not be ideal in a club. Booze and women....definitely not a good idea to have weapons on a person.

Daryl wrote:I know that I'm wasting my time typing this but be aware that among the international headlines concerning this atrocity, there are some saying words to the tune of "Wait for it, the US gun loonies will now claim that the fix for gun massacres is more guns". As predicted here it is.

No point in pointing out the obvious but why have assault rifles legally available to anyone with the cash? I have used them on the range and in hunting feral pigs, but really they have only one true function, to kill humans wholesale.

What could they have done to stop it? Incarcerate him based on being a shitty husband, saying something that is generally not accepted in polite society and being a distant aquaintance of an actual terrorist?

There was enough evidence to the FBI to investigate him at least twice (some reports say three times). Same deal the the Boston Bombers. They got investigated, then it was dropped. I can see the FBI's problem. There are 1000s of radical Islamists, 10,000s of strong supporters, 100,000s of weaker supporters but only a handful of actual terrorists. Given the Freedom of speech laws in the USA even the 1000s of radical Islamists can't be arrested until they actually do something and the FBI can't keep them all under surveillance.

But what can they do with reasonable resource expenditure?

One idea is social media monitoring. It takes a lot of resources to put someone under surveillance and fewer but still significant resources to send someone out to repeatedly interview individuals. But social media monitoring is very doable. All it takes is for someone in an office someplace to check these guys Facebook etc accounts once a month or so. Most of them post their escalating radicalization online, so this could be used as a red flag signalling a need for additional resource expenditure involved in further in person interviews etc. Regarding privacy, if there is probable cause for the FBI to show up twice for in person questioning, there is probable cause for social media monitoring. That's what warrants are for.

PeterZ wrote:
They were socialists with one key difference. Their socialism was harnessed to their strong nationalism. Socialists as a rule followed the Marxism in envisioning a borderless world once perfection was reached.

Besides the issue of nationalism, both believed in a strong government that controlled the means of production to a greater or lesser degree.

Your repeated attempts at historical revisionism is really quite disgusting.

Trying to bunch up perpetrators with their victims, you really must be severely morally bankrupt.

Fully agree Biochem.
Unfortunately to try to 100% ensure that things like this don't happen, you'd have to develop a society like Stalin or Hitler with political prisoners kept in concentration camps by the hundreds of thousands. It didn't work for them anyway.
The cure would be much worse than the disease.
Back in the 1960s the daily papers were full of Buddists publically burning themselves to death in protests. The Islamic extremist crisis will also eventually become history.

Incidentally equating socialism with the NAZIs makes as much sense as believing the Democratic part of North Korea's official name. When will people get that socialism and totalitarianism are two quite different political concepts. They can be combined, but very rarely are, usually facists are the control freaks.

Wake up and smell tcoffee, gcomeau. Aside from the focus on nationalism you socialists and the Nazis want to control the economy through legislation. Both socialists and Nazis believed that the private sector had to be subject to government control. Nazis did use capitalism to distribute the benefits of operating the economy while socialists used political considerations. That government controlled the private sector in both approaches is indisputable.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
They were socialists with one key difference.

FFS...

They were an ANTI-SOCIALIST hard right fascist party. The one and only reason they had "socialist" in their party name is they were trying to redefine the term in their fight against actual socialists. They were not socialists in any sense of the word anyone else uses the term "socialist" for.

They did in fact come for the socialists first once they came to power, as of course was their clearly stated intention. One of the first things they did in coming to power was outlaw actual socialism. They outlawed labor unions. They abolished newspapers with liberal leanings.

They. Were. Not. Socialists.

And all the ridiculous attempts by US conservatives to try to rewrite history to pretend they were doesn't change a thing.